Procedure th 10. The complaint was received at the Secretariat of the African Commission on 6 October 2004. th 11. On 12 October 2004, the Secretariat wrote to the Complainants acknowledging receipt of the th complainant [sic] and informing them that it will be considered at the Commission’s 36 Ordinary Session. th 12. At its 36 Ordinary Session the African Commission considered the communication and decided to be seized thereof. th 13. By Note Verbale of 13 December 2004 and letter of the same date the Secretariat informed the Parties of the Commission’s decision. rd 14. By letter dated 3 February 2005, the Complainant submitted its arguments on admissibility and nd by letter dated 22 February 2004, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Complainant’s submissions. nd 15. By Note Verbale dated 22 February 2005, the Secretariat transmitted the Complainant’s submission to the Respondent State and informed the latter that the African Commission would like to th receive its arguments by 13 March 2005. th 16. By letter of 14 March 2005, the Office of the Attorney General of Zimbabwe requested the th African Commission to defer consideration of the communication to its 38 Ordinary Session as it had not had time to prepare the responses. th 17. By letter of 18 March 2005 addressed to the Attorney General, the Secretariat granted the State th an extension of thirty days and requested it to submit its arguments by 18 April 2005. th 18. At its 37 Ordinary Session held in Banjul, The Gambia, the African Commission deferred consideration on admissibility of the communication pending the Respondent State’s submission of its arguments. th 19. By Note Verbale of 24 May 2005, the Respondent State was notified of the Commission’s decision and requested to submit its arguments within three months of the notification. By letter of the same date, the Complainant was notified of the Commission’s decision. nd 20. By Note Verbale of 2 September 2005, the Respondent State was reminded to send its arguments of admissibility of the communication. th 21. By Note Verbale of 18 October 2005, the Respondent State was reminded to send its st arguments of admissibility of the communication before 31 October 2005. st 22. On 1 November 2005, the Secretariat received a Note Verbale from the Respondent State indicating that the latter’s submissions with regards to six communications brought against it were ready for submission but due to logistical problems beyond its control, the transmission of the submissions had been slightly delayed. rd th 23. On 23 November 2005 the Zimbabwean delegation attending the 38 Ordinary Session of the Commission handed the Respondent State’s response on the communication. The Secretariat was informed that a copy had been given to the Complainants, and the latter confirmed receipt thereof. th st th 24. At its 38 Ordinary Session held from 21 November to 5 December 2005, the African Commission considered the communication and decided to declare it admissible. th 25. By Note Verbale of 15 December 2005 and by letter of the same date, the Secretariat of the African Commission informed both parties of the African Commission’s decision and requested them to submit their arguments on the merits within three months. st 26. By letter of 21 December 2005, the Complainant acknowledged receipt of the Secretariat’s letter th of 15 December and indicated that it will furnish its arguments on the merits “within the procedurally stipulated period”. th 27. By Note Verbale of 6 March 2006 and by letter of the same date the Secretariat of the African st Commission reminded both parties to submit their arguments on the merits before 31 March 2006. th 28. By letter dated 19 April 2006, the Secretariat received the submissions of the Complainant on the merits of the communication. The Secretariat was informed that the State had equally been served with the same. th 29. During the 39 Ordinary Session of the African Commission, the Secretariat received the submissions of the Respondent State.